Formal Notice of Title 5 USC § 552

Privacy Act of 1974

To: ____________________________________

You are hereby being put on Formal Notice and advised of the following facts of law regarding the Social Security Number and the Privacy Act of 1974, Title 5 USC § 552.

A judgment of $1000.00 (one-thousand) plus costs and attorney fees will be assessed against the individual, business and/or government agency that denies a person a right, service, benefit and/or privilege for not providing a Social Security number when the person is not required by law.

	A Social Security Number is required and is used just for the following benefits:
1.	Receiving public assistance benefits.
2.	Social Security Taxes.
3.	Receiving Social Security and refunds.

An individual may refuse and not provide the Social Security number for any other reason than those listed above.

Form of the Privacy Act:

(A)	Actual damages sustained by the individual as a result of the refusal and/or failure of providing a Social Security number shall be entitled and will not recover less than $1,000.00 (one-thousand).
(B)	The cost of the action together with reasonable attorney costs as determined by the court.

Awards may be recovered from the government agency, business and/or individual that deny the right, benefit and/or privilege. (See Federal Court decisions set forth below)

"The right of privacy is a personal right designed to protect persons from unwanted disclosure of personal information…" CNA Financial Corporation v. Local 743 D.C. Ill., 1981 F. Supp. 942 Ill.

The Act…"was enacted for (the) purpose of curtailing the expanding use of the Social Security Numbers…and eliminate the threat to individual privacy and confidentiality of information passed by common numerical identifiers." Doyle v. Wilson, D.C. Del. 1982, 529 F. Supp. 1343

"(a)(1) It shall be unlawful…to deny to any individual any right, benefit or privilege provided by law because of such individual's refusal to disclose his social security number." Guidelines and Regulations for the Maintenance of Privacy and Protection of Records on Individuals.

	Therefore, I do hereby declare my specific right of not disclosing a Social Security Number for the reasons stated above. I may commence litigation under the Privacy Act if services are denied as a result of my non-disclosure of said number.

Dated this _____________ day of ______________________, _______________.

____________________________________Signature

Address:____________________________

City: _______________________________ State: ___________________ Zip:_____________________
Page 1 of 2
Disclosure of social security number. Act Dec. 31, 1974, P.L. 93‑579, Section 7. 88 Stat. 1909, provided: "(a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual's refusal to disclose his social security account number. "(2) the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply with respect to ‑

"(A) any disclosure which is required by Federal statute, or

"(B) the disclosure of a social security number to any Federal, State, or local agency maintaining a system of records in existence and operating before January 1, 1975, if such disclosure was required under statute or regulation adopted prior to such date to verify the identity of an individual. "(b) Any Federal, State, or local government agency which requests an individual to disclose his social security account number shall inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority such number is solicited, and what uses will be made of it.

"Comments by Paul Mitchell follow: Congress deliberately failed to codify this statute in Title 5 of the United States Code. You will find it embedded at the end of the historical notes within the Privacy Act. When a government employee was sued for violating this Act, he asserted ignorance of the law as his defense. The court upheld this defense, thus creating an important exception to the general rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse. My reading of this decision is that the court was giving silent judicial notice to the fact that Congress actually "hid" the law, thus, the court's holding did not really overturn the maxim (ignorance is not excuse); it merely recognized that fraud vitiates everything, even the most solemn promises.